The power to define is the most important power we have. He is
master who can define.

Steely Carmichael.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

This country has been bogged down in debating settled moral questions
for long enough. All we are doing is wasting time squabbling over the
fundamental human rights regarding reproduction, death with dignity, and
a person's sexual preferences.

It is high time we moved on to the many urgent and pressing questions
that are not settled and that face our society and the world.
Anyone who wants to continue talking about settled moral issues is free
to do so, but they deserve to be isolated and left behind as the rest of
society moves forward.

Using The Most Basic Strategy.

The Assumptions.

The easiest way to put an opponent at an immediate
disadvantage whether it be in a nationwide political campaign or a local
debate is to get him to unconsciously accept one or more of your basic
assumptions as established or proven fact.

This strategy is commonly known as "begging the question(s)."

All pro-lifers have heard their opponents say something along the
lines of "Every thinking person knows that homosexuals are
born with their gender preferences," or "There is no longer
any serious debate over whether or not there is a Constitutional right
to abortion [or right to die]."

This is the Neoliberal's way of simply pretending that opposing views
(and those who espouse them) simply do not exist. As far as sodomites,
pro-abortionists, and other Neoliberals are concerned, pro-lifers are
ciphers non-entities invisible people. Our opinions do not count and
therefore are not even mentioned in polite Neoliberal company, except as
fodder for ridicule or as a means of identifying oneself as a
far-Leftist to others of like mind.

A Neoliberal's false assumptions literally define the framework of
his very existence, and include most or all of those listed in this
chapter.

Attacking the Assumptions.

Sometimes it can be quite difficult to
recognize when a Neoliberal is begging the question(s), because his
false assumption(s) are so wide in scope or so basic to the debate as to
be nearly indiscernible.

These assumptions provide the context (logical environment) within
which he thinks and debates.

There is a great danger in accepting assumptions without thinking
about them. A person who mindlessly adheres to any set of unwarranted or
false assumptions eventually begins to lose his ability to reason. To
begin with, if the underlying assumptions of a philosophy are faulty,
everything built upon these assumptions will be fundamentally flawed as
well.

When a pro-lifer effectively debunks a Neoliberal's false
assumptions, it causes a profound mental disorientation in the Neolib
because the foundation for his arguments has been destroyed. A pro-lifer
can cause great discomfort in his opponent by recognizing the fallacious
assumptions inherent in the Neoliberal position and exposing them by
using the principle of parallelism. This means that the logic inherent
in a person's beliefs must be universally applicable to all similar situations in order to be valid.

The principle of parallelism and other effective debating tactics are
described in Chapter 29.

It Can Be Tough ... Nobody likes to stand up and speak 'against the
flow.' Any pro-lifer who raises any objections to the Neoliberal's
'settled' assumptions is likely to be met with gasps of disbelief and
hoots of derision. After all, every "thinking" person has
accepted the Neoliberal framework at least, that's what they say.

Pro-lifers must realize that false Neoliberal assumptions are nothing
more than the person's internalization and generalization of the slogans
described in Chapter 16.

The more general the statement uttered by a Neoliberal, the more
likely it is to be based on one or more false underlying assumptions.

A few examples of Neoliberal question-begging are shown in Figure
6-1.

Statement. "Abortion funding must be reinstated where it has
been eliminated by anti-choice legislators, because such reactionary
restrictions hurt poor women the most."

Underlying assumptions.

(1) That abortion is a societal 'good' that benefits the nation.
(2) That abortion is a fundamental Constitutional right and therefore
must be
financially supported by everyone.

By Euthanasiasts

Statement. "The right to a death with dignity is a fundamental
human right that must be guaranteed for everyone."

Underlying assumptions.

(1) That abuses will not take place or will be very rare.
(2) That society has no interest in protecting its citizens.
(3) That euthanasia is a positive social 'good' that essentially
affects nobody
but the person in question.
(4) That most people experience extreme pain despite medication when
they
die.

By Sodomites

Statement. "Hate crimes laws must be passed in every state and
must be vigorously enforced."

Underlying assumptions.

(1) That sodomy and associated sexual perversions constitute a
lifestyle that
is morally equivalent to normalcy.
(2) That most people agree with the homosexual agenda.

Statement. "Federal and local government funding for AIDS
research and education must be tripled in the next five years."

Underlying assumptions.

(1) That AIDS funding is inadequate and much more important than
funding
for research into other diseases.
(2) That sodomites bear no responsibility for their perverted
behaviors.

(1) That any limitation, even on 'snuff films' and 'kiddie porn,'
constitutes a
direct threat to all forms of expression.
(2) That pornography is fundamentally cathartic and harmless.

Identifying the Assumptions.

Introduction.

Every true Neoliberal operates within a general
framework of about twenty assumptions that define how his ideal world
would look if he had any say in the matter. These assumptions do not
necessarily have anything to do with reality.

This framework is a powerful psychological prop because the
Neoliberal can construct a picture of 'reality,' measure it against this
network of assumptions, and, if the two do not match, he will either
ignore the situation if it does not impinge upon his personal rights or
decide to take action if it poses any threat to him.

It should be noted that everyone, regardless of religion or political
affiliation, has a framework of assumptions that helps defines his life.
These frameworks are valid if they consist of assumptions that are
grounded in fact, not dreams or wishes.

The basic Neoliberal assumptions are listed in Figure 6-2. Note that
they are separated into two categories.

FIGURE 6-2
BASIC NEOLIBERAL ASSUMPTIONS

ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT GENERAL MORALITY (Explained in Chapter 6)

(1) The concepts of "sin" and "evil" are
outmoded.
(2) Moral relativism is the rule.
(3) Since there is no afterlife, the paramount concern is
"quality of life."
(4) All 'progress' is good.
(5) Tolerance, compassion, and nonjudgmentalism are the highest
personal
virtues.
(6) Religion and its associated values have absolutely no place in
public
education.
(7) The only good Christian is a bad Christian.
(8) Diversity is good, no matter how bizarre its form.

ISSUE-SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS (Explained in the indicated chapters)

(9) Eurocentrism is bad and multiculturalism is good (Chapter 9,
"The Victim
Status").
(10) Abortion is a "fundamental human right" (Chapter 17,
"Propaganda").
(11) Animals are morally equivalent to human beings (Chapter 91 of
Volume
III, "Animal Rights and Environmentalism").
(12) The death penalty can never be justified (Chapter 92 of Volume
III,
"Capital Punishment").
(13) Communism is just an economic system (Chapters 93 through 96 of
Volume III, "Communism").
(14) People have an absolute right to do whatever they want with
their own
bodies (i.e., assisted suicide) (Chapter 106 of Volume III,
"Philosophy and
Theology of Euthanasia").
(15) Homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality.
Homosexuals
have no control over their behavior because they are
"born that way"
(Chapters 115, 116, and 117 of Volume III,
"Homosexual Orientation,
Objectives, and Tactics").
(16) All war is unjust (Chapter 123 of Volume III, "The
"Just War"
Theory").
(17) The American media is completely fair and impartial (Chapters
124
through 127 of Volume III, "Media Biases").
(18) Marriage constitutes slavery for women. Children are a burden to
all
adults. Women are fundamentally identical (not just equal) to
men in every
way (Chapters 113 and 129 of Volume III, "The
Family" and
"Neofeminism").
(19) Every individual is a god or goddess (Chapter 130 of Volume III,
"The
"New Age" Movement").
(20) Overpopulation is society's most serious problem. People are a
burden
to the planet (Chapter 131 of Volume III,
"Overpopulation").
(21) Pornography is perfectly harmless (Chapter 134 of Volume III,
"Effects
of Pornography").

The first category concerns general metaphysical assumptions that
have been debated for decades or even centuries. All of these
assumptions are common to all Neoliberal individuals and causes and are
discussed in the remainder of this chapter in more detail.

The second category of assumptions is issue-specific, and each is
discussed in the chapters indicated in Figure 6-2.

Dealing with the Assumptions.

The process of successfully dealing
with Neoliberal assumptions consists of two separate steps:

The remainder of this chapter describes this two-step process and how
it can effectively be applied to the most popular Neoliberal ethical
assumptions.

FALSE NEOLIBERAL ASSUMPTION #1:
The Concepts of 'Sin' and 'Evil' Are Outmoded.

The Most Basic Assumption.

The most basic assumption of almost every Neoliberal individual and
group is that the concepts of "Satan," "sin," and
"evil" are quaint and outmoded.

The first reason that Neoliberals reject these concepts is that they
believe that they are positively dangerous, because people who
believe in them must necessarily hold the "judgmental" notion
that some people are "bad." And the Neoliberals, of course,
know instinctively that they are the "bad" people.

There is a second and more personal reason that Neoliberals avoid the
concepts of "sin" and "evil." Anyone who accepts
that there is "sin" and "evil" recognizes that human
nature is capable of them, and therefore the person is inevitably led
into occasional self-criticism and self-doubt, which definitely detracts
from the individual's quest for earthly perfection. This conflicts with
the "New Age" idea that all human beings are 'little gods'
striving for divinity on earth.

The ultimate result of the Neoliberal "sin is outmoded"
idea, of course, is that God is either dead or irrelevant. After all, if
sin simply does not exist, who needs God for salvation?

Refuting the Assumption.

The easiest way to rebut the "no sin or evil" assumption is
to name a specific act and then ask the Neoliberal if he considers it to
be sinful or evil.

The person will almost certainly reply that certain examples of
'social sins' such as apartheid, racism, sexism, and/or 'homophobia' are
inherently evil.

Alternatively, the Neoliberal might assert that certain specific
actions performed by individual pro-lifers or groups are evil, i.e.,
doing rescue missions or petitioning to have "sexual
preference" clauses dropped from anti-discrimination statutes.

Of course, this means that if the Neoliberal believes that any
particular act is evil, there must be people 'committing' the acts, and
these people must therefore be relegated to a 'less good' status than
those who do not commit the acts in question. In other words, the
Neoliberal actually does believe in the concept of
"evil" and is therefore being judgmental and inconsistent with
his previous statement(s) disavowing the concept.

If the Neoliberal instead resorts to the moral relativist position
that the commission of any act depends upon the specific situation, the
pro-lifer may then state that 'homophobia,' sexism, racism, and even
rape are sometimes acceptable depending, of course, upon the situation.
This tactic will highlight the basic absurdity in the "sin is
outmoded" assumption.

The Neoliberal might reply that these acts involve victims which is
true, of course, but irrelevant to the argument over whether or not
"evil" actually exists.

The basic point that must be made is that everybody thinks
that some acts are evil no matter how non-judgmental or tolerant
they claim to be. This means that there is no such thing as a pure
moral relativist.

In support of this point, the pro-lifer might remark that it would
give him great personal fulfillment and joy if the Neoliberal would
allow him to kick a few dents in his car (or bicycle) and perhaps
scratch up the paint a little. This type of statement very quickly
separates the true 'moral relativists' from the bogus ones.

In summary, everyone has a different definition of "sin"
and pro- lifers simply refuse to accept the Neoliberal definition. This
is what the Neoliberals are really saying with this first and
most basic false assumption not that "evil" is outmoded, but
that some people think that what they (the Neolibs) are doing is
"evil."

In other words, the Neoliberals are implying that they can do no
evil. This is evidenced by the fact that many or most Neoliberals
will claim with straight faces that "women cannot oppress
men," that "Black people are incapable of racism," and
that "gays and lesbians are not capable of hate."

FALSE NEOLIBERAL ASSUMPTION #2:
Moral Relativism is the Rule.

Introduction.

The second false Neoliberal assumption springs directly from the
first.

Since Neoliberals don't believe in sin, they have no need of God
(unless the "God" happens to be a tolerant, nonjudgmental
"mush god" who would never condemn anyone to Hell).

It follows that they will then reject the Christian value system,
which (whether they acknowledge it or not), undergirds and serves as the
framework for this country's value system.

Why Turn From God in the First Place?

The fundamental reason that most people turn from God is that they
wish to be free of what they perceive to be "oppressive" rules
and limits, which they do not realize are necessary for true freedom.
Therefore, it naturally follows that they will also reject or bypass
those laws set by society that they find to be unduly limiting.

This is the basis of 'situational ethics,' the concept that there are
really no limits that cannot be transcended if the individual perceives
that they stand in the way of his desired goal(s).

Result: TEGWAR.

Since situational ethics rule the Neoliberal mind, life becomes
"The Exciting Game Without Any Rules" (TEGWAR).

To the Neoliberal, anything goes as far as strategy and tactics are
concerned, because 'progressive' morality is by definition good.
Lies, slander, deception, and even killing are all the Devil's tools,
and are easily adapted by Neoliberals to advance their agenda(s).
Examples of these unscrupulous tactics abound: The Clarence Thomas and
Robert Bork fiascos, the congressional machinations of Henry Waxman and
Teddy Kennedy, and the quotes supporting lawbreaking by the directors of
the major pro-abortion groups.

Of course, when any conservative or Christian group is accused of
violence or unethical behavior (such as bombing abortion mills or
televangelists sinning), it is cause for great celebration and
finger-pointing by hypocritical Neoliberals. After all, in their view,
it is only the Neoliberals who are allowed to stretch the law to
the breaking point or to bypass and ignore it altogether.

Refuting the Assumption.

The approach to refuting the assumption that situational ethics is
workable is to point out the logical results of such a philosophy,
either at the individual or societal level.

Situational ethics can only properly function in a society that
consists of beings who have perfect judgment and are therefore capable
of doing only the right thing in every possible situation. Such a
society, or course, would not need laws or ordinances of any kind.

It would also have no human beings in it.

However, we human beings are definitely fallible. The evidence that
we do wrong constantly is always before us, and fills our newspapers and
newscasts.

Nobody in his right mind (not even a Neoliberal) will defend the
thesis that a person, if left to his own devices, will always do the
right thing for society. In fact, people will not always do the right
things for themselves if given complete freedom.

However, this does not matter to the Neoliberal. His criterion is not
that people will always do the right thing; it is that people must be
completely free to do either the right or the wrong thing.

This is essentially a prescription for anarchy. As fallible human
beings, we require solid guidelines, whether they be religious or
secular, in order to be able to live together. The Neoliberal, however,
advocates the idea that all limits and laws can be transcended if the
individual judges certain actions necessary.

Where Has Situational Ethics Led Us?

The basic fallacy of situational ethics is painfully ironic.

The very heart of the Humanist's existence is the drive for happiness
and pleasure and freedom from responsibility and pain.

The examination of ethics and morality has taught us that, if a
philosophy does not fulfill its primary goal, then it is a failure.
Honesty compels us to ask ourselves: Has the concept of limited
situational ethics really made us more happy? Are we as individuals and
as a society freer and happier than we were, say, half a century ago?

Only the most naive and inexperienced optimist would say that we are.
Crime of every type from larceny to rape and murder is at an all-time
high. The practice of psychiatry is a growth business because people are
uncertain of their mental health. Health clubs abound because people are
uncertain of their physical health. Millions of children suffer because
schools are virtual cesspools and most marriages now end in divorce.

Public opinion polls repeatedly show that people believe that we are
much worse off as a society in general than we were just twenty years
ago. Even thinking Humanists agree that pure situation ethics will not
function in a society that hopes to survive, and that some sort of value
system is absolutely essential.

The Brookings Institute is the largest and most prestigious liberal
'think-tank' in America. Recently one of its leading researchers, A.
James Reichley, in a 389-page study entitled Religion in American
Public Life, concluded that the representative form of government
"depends for its health on values that, over the not-so-long run,
must come from religion." Through religion, "human rights are
rooted in the moral worth with which a loving Creator has endowed each
human soul, and social authority is legitimized by making it answerable to a transcendent moral law."

By this criterion, then, Humanism and its entrained concept of
situational ethics is a complete and utter failure.

FALSE NEOLIBERAL ASSUMPTION #3:
There is No Afterlife, So 'Quality of Life' Now is Paramount.

The Assumption.

The Neoliberal movements are all part of the general push towards
Modernism, which holds that man must save himself. As the 1980 Secular
Humanist Declaration flatly stated, "Secular humanists reject
the idea that God intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself
to a chosen few, or that he can save or redeem sinners. We reject the
divinity of Jesus."

Imagine for a moment the ways such an attitude could deform a
person's ethical structure. There is no afterlife after death, there is
no judgment, no Heaven, no Hell, just nothingness. The instant that a
person's consciousness winks out for the last time, the individual
simply ceases to exist. His body will not rise again; all it is good for
is fertilizer.

It is natural to expect that a Modernist, who has no eternal
framework, will strive to make his pitiful little collection of years on
earth a series of pleasant and exciting experiences. As he grows older,
he becomes more and more aware of his limitations and his mortality, and
anyone or any rule that interferes with his freedom and his
pleasure-seeking must be either removed or avoided.

The logical outgrowth of such an attitude is situational ethics.
Since moral relativism or situational ethics is the Neoliberal rule,
people can justify even killing if they can rationalize it in
terms of environmental good (general "quality of life") or
individual (specific) "quality of life."

This all-important "quality of life" is defined as the
relative degree of freedom, comfort, and escape from restrictive
responsibility that individuals or groups can achieve.

If a person believes that "quality of life" is the highest
good, then he will also accept the abortion of 'unwanted children,'
because their existence will allegedly cause the parents to have a
decreased "quality of life." He will also accept euthanasia,
so that unwanted elderly and handicapped persons will not impede his
"quality of life." And he will accept homosexuality, because
after all, what is "quality of life" but the pursuit of
personal happiness with total disregard for 'restrictive' moral standards?

Refuting the Assumption.

The "quality of life" is a powerful lure precisely because
it appeals strongly to our fallen human nature. As human beings, we tend
to try to escape responsibility and suffering as much as possible and
embrace enjoyment and pleasure to the greatest possible degree.

The Neoliberal knows this, and also knows that he has a new ally if
he can simply get a person to give in to his ingrained selfish instincts
and accept the idea that "quality of life" is paramount.

In order to refute this argument, the pro-lifer must show that the
mere pursuit of pleasure is not only selfish but illogical as well,
because if enough people focus only on themselves, the inevitable result
will be a degree of anarchy that results in a tremendous decline
in the degree of "quality of life" for all people.

Our society is an excellent case in point. Fifty years ago, the
post-war United States had a relatively strict set of standards that,
even though they were not always observed, were at least acknowledged by
almost everyone.

Today, by contrast, there are no absolute standards. And we are
paying the inevitable price on every front. It is not exaggerating the
situation to say that most people have a lesser degree of personal
freedom than ever before.

It used to be possible for amoral people to fornicate freely with
whomever they pleased; now such activities are tantamount to playing
Russian roulette. We used to be able to walk the streets at night,
alone, without fear, while leaving our houses unlocked. This would be
very foolish in most places today. A million of our citizens now enjoy
very little freedom of any kind because they bought into moral
relativism and now languish in prison because of it. Our children have
fewer career opportunities because they learn so little in school. Employers must grill prospective job applicants on their
attitudes before hiring them, because theft and embezzlement are at an
all-time high.

"Quality of Life" Then.

Pro-aborts are not really raving demons, although they may appear to
be at times. They are perfectly ordinary human beings just like you and
me who just happen to have bought into the deadly "quality of
life" ethic.

Most of the Nazi killers of the World War II concentration camps were
also perfectly ordinary human beings, as described in Christopher
Browning's book Ordinary Men (Harper-Collins, 1992). Browning
describes the activities of a military reserve unit, the 101st Police
Battalion, which was comprised entirely of Bremerhaven steelworkers.

It was the job of these men to "process" new arrivals at
the Polish concentration camps, including Auschwitz. When trainloads of
Jews and other "undesirables" would arrive at the camps, the
steelworkers would first separate small children from their mothers.
Then they would slaughter the mothers. And then they killed the little
children with clear consciences, since, without mothers, their
"quality of life" (Lebensqualitat) would be too low.[2]

And so, the members of this unit which consisted entirely of
perfectly ordinary people slaughtered thousands of little two- and
three-year old girls and boys, and claimed at the Nuremburg trials that
they were merely "participating in acts of mercy."

"Quality of Life" Now.

Today, abortion clinic workers echo the same words used by the
Bremerhaven steelworkers as they fruitlessly tried to defend themselves
against charges of mass murder and genocide at the Nuremburg trials.
Many abortuary staff have candidly admitted that, if it were legal to
kill perfectly healthy four- and five-year old boys and girls in
clinics, they would gladly help.

A typical interview with an abortuary employee;

Question: "Oh, so as long as you make money, it doesn't
matter?"
Clinic Employee: "As long as it's food in my stomach, no, it
doesn't matter. It is legal ... It is legal ... It is legal!"
Question: "So if they legalized killing four-year-old children,
you would have no problem?"
Clinic Employee: "No, I would not have a problem ... My
conscience is very clear ..."[3]

Of course, the slaughter of born human beings is not yet
accepted by society to the point where it can be committed in
freestanding 'euthanasia mills.' The killing of 'imperfect' newborns
that have an excessively low 'quality of life' quotient is carried out
today in our spotless and sanitary hospitals, far from public scrutiny
and protest.

The mass murder has already begun.

Over a period of three years, a team of four physicians and a social
worker at the Oklahoma Children's Memorial Hospital evaluated 69 babies
born with myelomeningocele (spina bifida) with a mathematical
quality-of-life formula. Of these, 36 were considered worthy of life and
were given aggressive treatment, and 33 were pronounced unworthy of
further effort and were deemed unfit to live.[4]

All of the little babies in the untreated group died after spending
an average of 37 days on this hostile earth. The 'physicians'
responsible for this slaughter published their findings to wide
applause.[5]

According to knowledgeable physicians and researchers, anywhere from
2,000 to 10,000 infanticides are committed in our country each year.

It is natural that anti-lifers should prey upon the young and
helpless in the name of their own 'quality of life,' and it is equally
inevitable that they should follow this by killing the adult
helpless.

Their names are legion: Nancy Cruzan, Karen Ann Quinlan, Joseph
Saikewicz, Joseph Fox, Clarence Herbert, Claire Conroy, Helen Corbett,
Paul Brophy, Elizabeth Bouvia, Hector Rodas, Nancy Ellen Jobes, Marcia
Gray, Ione Bayer, Mary O'Connor, Carrie Coons, and more than two
thousand others every year. In the vast majority of cases, it is not the
helpless person who requests death; it is those who are sick and tired
of caring for them, those whose 'quality of life' is being hampered by
having to deal with their drooling grandma, those who want to divert
their energies to 'more productive' (for them) activities.

Isn't is funny how it is always someone else who must die for
the anti-lifer's "quality of life?"

Conclusion.

We have truly become a nation without honor, because many of our
citizens value their own 'quality of life' even over the right of the
so-called 'inconvenient' to live.

And the paradox continues. The more individual freedom we demand and
receive, the less freedom we actually have.

The only answer to this vicious circle is a return to more
self-discipline, which is anathema to the entitlement- and
comfort-addicted Neoliberal mentality. As described in Chapter 7,
"Gradualism," it is infinitely easier for society to loosen up
its moral standards than it is to develop some backbone and do what is
necessary for its own survival by 'tightening up.'

FALSE NEOLIBERAL ASSUMPTION #4:
All 'Progress' is Good.

'Progress' = The Ultimate Goal.

In the mad Neoliberal rush to achieve the greatest possible degree of
personal freedom, 'progress' becomes an end unto itself. Iconoclasm and
nihilism are the highest goods, and change any change is the
goal, no matter what the result.

The Neoliberal does not enter manhood by proving that he has the
self-discipline or talent to adhere to society's standards he achieves
acceptance among his disaffected peers by flaunting his lack of
these qualities in the most offensive way possible, and then demanding
that society support him.

And society 'enables' him by being stupid enough to comply with his
demands.

It is now axiomatic in the anti-life movements that all (forward)
change is good; all resistance to such change is, by definition,
"reactionary."

To the Neoliberal, to change something is to reform it and improve
it. Therefore, redefining marriage to include homosexuals and unlimited
promiscuity is a reform; to oppose or to attempt to change the
definition back is evil. To abolish all restrictions whatever on
the printed word, to include children having sex with animals, is
"progressive;" to oppose this is "wrong thinking"
and "censorship." Unlimited free abortion is a 'good;' to
advocate even the most justifiable limits on it, such as a ban on
third-trimester abortions, or decent burial for the babies, is
"backward" and "misogynist."

The American people demonstrated that they have bought into this
philosophy to the point that 'change' is more important to them than
morality when, in November of 1992, they elected a pot-smoking,
draft-dodging adulterer with a social agenda that would make Hitler
green with envy to the Presidency of the United States.

Refuting the Assumption.

The easiest way to demonstrate the inherently illogical nature of the
"change = good" assumption is by showing that all progress is
not necessarily 'good.'

Since Neoliberals define 'progress' simply as any change in status
from one point in time to the next, all a pro-life debater needs to do
is describe the evolution of any obviously destructive social movement.

Adolf Hitler and the Nazis certainly thought that they were achieving
'progress' by exterminating the crippled, the Gypsies, and the Jews,
whom they termed "infestations." American slavers certainly
thought that they were progressing as they forced an entire race to do
the menial chores they abhorred so that they would be free to pursue
higher goals. Pol Pot announced a great program for social progress as
he exterminated nearly one-sixth of Cambodia's population. And
abortophiles trumpet their 'progress' in "women's rights" at
the expense of the blood of thirty million preborn children.

The key to dissecting and debunking this assumption is to show that
one man's progress is another man's death or slavery. Everyone has his
own idea of what progress really is. If this 'progress' requires the
destruction of other people, it is not really progress at all just
genocide.

The only real progress is achieved when everyone
advances together! We cannot call anything "progress" if we
choose to leave anyone behind, for whatever reason.

This is why women as a class will never truly achieve what they call
'equal rights' and freedom from 'patriarchal oppression' as long as
people see that they are oppressing another class of people the preborn.
No class of people can ever be free of oppression unless they themselves
decide never again to oppress. Otherwise, their hypocrisy will always
bring them down.

Neoliberal churches and the media constantly exhort us to take
definite action against diffuse "social sins" like hunger,
racism, sexism, and "homophobia."

However, when we attempt to examine the sins that individuals
commonly commit, we are immediately told that we must "mind our own
business" and "not get involved." Tolerance, compassion,
and nonjudgmentalism suddenly become the only truly 'good' intrinsic
personality traits.

It is kind of odd, isn't it, that people are allowed to get away with
abortion, fornication, adultery, divorce, suicide, sodomy, and a host of
other sins that the Neoliberals believe are ethics-neutral but when
individuals engage in racism, sexism, or homophobia (even in their thoughts),
suddenly personal behavior becomes a matter for legal action and
legislation?

This is entirely logical and consistent to the Neoliberal, because
the 'goods' of tolerance and nonjudgmentalism are powerful tools that
are allowed to operate only when they benefit Neoliberal causes.
In other words, it is the Neoliberal movements that have defined what is
individual 'good' and 'bad' in our country. Anyone who opposes the
Modernist/Neoliberal agenda is therefore by definition
'intolerant' and 'judgmental,' and anyone who supports it is by
definition 'tolerant' and 'nonjudgmental.'

Refuting the Assumption.

The assumption that tolerance and nonjudgmentalism are the best
intrinsic personality traits is relatively easy to refute. All a
pro-lifer has to do is make his opponent appear hypocritical and
inconsistent by demonstrating a few of the many ways in which Neoliberals
are pervasively judgmental and intolerant.

The best way for a pro-lifer to do this is to point out that
Neoliberals say that they believe that everyone should be treated with
equal dignity, regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual
orientation. Then the pro-lifer may describe a few of the best-known
examples of how Neoliberal bigots have violated their own rule.

Slides or overhead transparencies that describe the following events
or display the following quotes have the most visual impact, but, if
such are not available, a lurid and graphic description or a simple
reading of the quote will usually suffice.

Examples of Neoliberal Misandry.

Introduction. Due to the persistent shrill whining of the
Neofeminists, almost everyone knows that 'misogyny' means the hatred of
women.

But very few people are familiar with the parallel term 'misandry'
the hatred of men despite the fact that may embittered and angry women
engage in it.

The Feminazis Speak.

For example, in response to an interview
question, lesbian playwright Carolyn Gage snarled that "I hate men.
That's like asking if I hate Nazism and like individual Nazis. If you
hate Nazism, you hate all Nazis. So I hate all men ... Men are different
from women; they have this testosterone problem. They're a different
species ..."[6]

SCUMmy Females.

One extreme pack of early-1970s misandrists labeled
themselves SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men), and published a
dead-serious "Manifesto" that alleged, among other things;

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no
aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to
civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the
government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation,
and destroy the male sex.

It is now technically possible to reproduce without the aid of
males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We
must begin immediately to do so. The male is a biological accident: the
Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, has an
incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete
female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene state ...

The male ... has made of the world a sh_tpile. He is
responsible for war, prostitution, mental illness, fear, cowardice,
timidity, humility, insecurity, prevention of privacy, conformity,
religion, prejudice, secrecy, censorship, suppression of knowledge and
ideas, distrust, ugliness, hate and violence, disease and death [many
more listed].

A small handful of SCUM can take over the country within a year
by systematically f_cking up the system, selectively destroying
property, and murder.

SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of
SCUM. Men in the Men's Auxiliary are those men who are working
diligently to eliminate themselves ...

[After the SCUM revolution], the few remaining men can exist
out their puny days dropped out on drugs or strutting around in drag or
passively watching the high-powered female in action, fulfilling
themselves as spectators, vicarious livers or breeding in the cow
pasture with the toadies, or they can go off to the nearest friendly
neighborhood suicide center where they will be quietly, quickly, and
painlessly gassed to death.[7]

Ever since the "SCUM manifesto" was publicized,
Neofeminists have alleged that it was just a "little joke."
Try to imagine what would happen if a group of men suggested that women
be "gassed to death" even in jest!

Other Neofeminists have written in their books and journals that
"All men are rapists. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and
their codes" (Marilyn French). "Men are locked in the
conquistador mind, the rapist mentality" (Sonja Johnson).
"Men's affairs, from what I can tell, are dominated by aggression
and alcohol" (Barbara Tuchman).[8]

Misandry in the 'Mainstream.' Misandry is even pervasive in the
"mainstream" world. A television advertisement for StayPut
Shoulder Pads coyly suggests that "They're like a good man: A
little bold, a little square, around when you need them ... They never
lose their shape. Which is more than you can say for most men."[9]
No Neofeminist breathed a word when Joan Rivers blurted, "Women are
so superior!" or when Margaret Thatcher made her memorable little
statement that "In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man;
if you want anything done, ask a woman." Many professional men have
been irritated by the popular office poster that claims "Whatever
women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good.
Luckily, this is not difficult." Try to imagine what would happen to the
poor office drone who reversed the genders in this poster!

Examples of Neoliberal Anti-Religious Bigotry.

Introduction.

While they trumpet tolerance for all, the Neoliberals
viciously attack the single institution that has had the courage to
stand up to their destructive goals; the remaining conservative
Christian churches.

It is safe to say that Neoliberals are not only atheistic; they are
positively anti-theistic.

Abortophile Anti-Religionism.

Most veteran pro-life picketers have
seen the cruel and hateful anti-Christian signs waved about by
counterpickets and escorts from American Atheists and other anti-theist
groups. These signs often carry hideous slogans such as:

"BLASPHEMY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME"
"CHRISTIANS ARE A__WIPES"
"MARY SHOULD HAVE HAD AN ABORTION"
"WE'RE TIRED OF BEING OPPRESSED BY YOUR BASTARD SON."

During a June 1988 taping of the Morton Downey Show, abortionist Bill
Baird snarled that "My goal is to see the end of religion in this
country." Baird, on CBS's "Nightwatch," also demanded
that Catholic bishops be declared "agents of a foreign power"
so that their private papers and finances could be thrown open to public
inspection.[10]

Atheist agitator and speaker Gina Allen snarled her hate of
Christianity as she claimed that;

I always steal a Bible out of a hotel. It makes the Gideons
very happy. You know, they look and they have to replace a Bible and
they say, 'We've got another convert.' Actually, I take them out of
hotels because I wouldn't want a child to get hold of this pornographic
book. Pornography is a symptom of a sick society a society based on this
book. Stories in the Bible are forerunners of the famous Hustler cover
that shows a woman being put through a meat grinder. This is what we
learn from this book that tells us how to rape, how to stone women and
children, how to burn women as witches, and so on ... The Lord God
invented women as a gadget a useful gadget for men's pleasure and use.
You take this gadget and you screw it on the bed and it does the
housework.[11]

I have a very special feminist dream. That dream is that this
model feminist ordinance should pass all over the nation. And that every
woman who had ever been raped and every woman who has ever been battered
and every girl-child who has ever been molested will sue under this
ordinance the Gideons who distribute this pornographic book, everybody
who publishes it, and everybody who preaches from it.[12]

Assault on a Cathedral.

Sodomites and pro-abortionists belonging to
the groups ACT-UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) and WHAM (Women's
Health Action Mobilization) stormed New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral
on December 10, 1989, assaulting parishioners, disrupting Cardinal John
O'Connor's Mass by screaming and shoving people, and desecrating the
consecrated Host by throwing It on the ground and stamping on It.
Outside, hundreds of screaming sodomites burned Cardinal O'Connor in
effigy and attacked passersby, all because the Cardinal had refused to
toe their immoral "safe sex" line.[13]

It is obvious to even the most casual observer that these posters are
not meant to merely protest; their messages directly attacked
Christianity and were meant to ridicule the most cherished beliefs of
Catholics.

In December of 1990, in defiance of a court order resulting from the
attack one year earlier, sodomites broke into the Mass once again and
made off with several consecrated Hosts, which they gleefully displayed
and abused outside.[14]

Examples of Neoliberal Heterophobia.

Introduction.

As with the term "misogyny," sodomites have
trumpeted the word "homophobia" for so long that everyone is
familiar with it.

But what about the sodomite's "heterophobia," which is at
its most virulent when spewed against opponents? Chapter 118 of Volume
III, "Homosexual Tactics," describes some vivid examples of
heterophobia. Some of the more extreme manifestations of this
psychological disease are shown below.

Sodomite Vows of Violence. Michelangelo Signorile, editor-at-large of
the sodomite magazine Outweek, showed his hate of presidential
contender Pat Buchanan when he wrote that

It's hard to refrain
from taking this man by the throat and squeezing as hard as you can
while you look into his ugly, disgusting face and watch the eyeballs
burst and pop out of their sockets. Or maybe you feel like stepping on
his face and squishing his demented brain until the rot oozes out of it
and onto the pavement. I have no problem with imagining violence against
this wacko ...[15]

Sodomite 'artist' David Wojnarowicz wrote in a tax-funded National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA) catalog that "At least in my
ungoverned imagination I can f_ck somebody without a rubber or I can, in
the privacy of my own skull, douse [Senator] Helms with a bucket of
gasoline and set his putrid a__ on fire or throw [Congressman] William
Dannemeyer off the Empire State Building ... [Cardinal John O'Connor] is
the world's most active liar about condoms and safer-sex ... This fat
cannibal from that house of walking swastikas up on Fifth Avenue should
lose his church tax-exempt status and pay retroactive taxes from the
last couple centuries."[16]

Examples of Neoliberal Racism.

Introduction.

Neoliberals consider themselves to be their most
sensitive when on the lookout for incidents of alleged 'racism.' It is
interesting to watch the reaction of an audience when a pro-life debater
simply substitutes the word "Black" for the word
"White" when discussing some of the more blatantly racist
statements made by Neoliberals.

The Barry and Carmichael Show.

For example, the former Mayor of
Washington, DC, Marion Barry, has called abortion clinic bombings
"terrorist acts," and has compared the bombers to Adolf
Hitler. This is curious in light of the fact that Barry, in the
mid-1960s, headed the Washington, DC Chapter of the Student Non-Violent
Coordinating Committee (SNCC), whose national chairman was Steely
Carmichael.

Carmichael said that "[Martin Luther] King's death made it a lot
easier for a lot of Negroes they know it's time to get guns
now."[17] After King was shot, 595 arson fires were set in urban
areas, and Carmichael said "That was light stuff compared with what
is about to happen."[17]

Barry never denounced Carmichael or this violence, of course,
because it was a Neoliberal, politically correct issue, which is always
somehow "different" (just ask him). Therefore, Barry is saying
that 595 arson fires, many randomly set, and many of which resulted in
deaths or injuries, are justified. Imagine what would happen if some
White person, in response to the killing of a White, alleged that it
would be alright to "get guns now" and set fires in Black
neighborhoods!

Racist Textbooks.

The University of Texas (Austin) requires only one
course in English composition, freshman-level English 306. The class
textbook, Paula S. Rothenberg's Racism and Sexism: An Integrated
Study, is composed entirely of left-wing essays denouncing the
incurably corrupt American "system" and bemoaning the fate of
various self-appointed victim groups.

Among other "wisdom," the Racism and Sexism text
states that, while all Whites are by definition racist in their
thoughts and actions, minorities "may discriminate against white
people or even hate them" but are not capable of racism!

This kind of nonsense, not surprisingly, has infected influential
Blacks who are always eager to grab headlines. Gus Savage, a Chicago
Democrat, went so far as to say that "only whites can be
racists."[18] This was the same Gus Savage who screamed at a
reporter from the Washington Times "I don't talk to you
White motherf_ckers. You b_tch motherf_ckers in the press ... F_ck you,
you motherf_cking a__holes!"[19]

Lest anyone take offense at such incandescent profanity, remember
that Neoliberals claim that this is not a racist statement.

Now imagine what would have happened if David Duke had shouted that
same statement at a Black reporter!

Other Silliness.

Susan Sontag has written that "The white race
is the cancer of history." Black Muslim Elijah Muhammad revealed
with a flourish and trumpets that Whites are devils invented by a mad
scientist named Yakub.[20]

Anyone (i.e., American Nazis) who utters such silliness directed
against Blacks is instantly attacked by the formidable media machine and
the full weight of the court system.

Hammering Home the Point.

If the Neoliberal debating opponent or members of the audience still
do not get the point that the pro-lifer is trying to make, he may try
substituting the words or images of Black people or Jews in the above
examples and inquire as to whether or not this would make them racist or
sexist statements.

A group of male sodomites from San Francisco dress up like Catholic
nuns and call themselves the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence"
as they mock the Catholic faith and make fun of the Mass. Ask if a bunch
of sodomites masquerading as rabbis or Jewish concentration camp
survivors would be allowable.

'Artist' Andres Sorrano makes his living by doing things like dipping
crucifixes and pictures of the Pope into bottles of his own urine. Ask
if a menorah, a volume of the Torah, or a photograph of Martin
Luther King dipped in urine would be racist or anti-Semitic in nature.

And, as mentioned above, groups like the Society for Cutting Up Men
(SCUM), despite their protestations that they were 'just joking,' have
suggested exterminating all men. Would the Neoliberals tolerate a group
of men jokingly suggesting that all women should be exterminated?

FALSE NEOLIBERAL ASSUMPTION #6:
Religion Has No Place in the Schools.

Introduction.

Neoliberals insist that Christianity has absolutely no place in
public education, because it teaches that there are some things that are
right and wrong. This allegedly leads to intolerance and judgmentally.
The only rule that may be taught in the public schools, they say, is
that everyone must be allowed to judge for themselves what is right and
what is wrong. This is the familiar moral relativism, or 'situational
ethics.'

The Neoliberals have acknowledged that the most certain way to
control society is to make sure that a Godless attitude is inculcated in
our children in the schools. Therefore, every trace of the Christian
value system must be eradicated.

Even though school Bible Clubs have been declared constitutional by
the United States Supreme Court under the Equal Access Act, Neoliberals
are still trying to keep them out. This exclusion of Christianity has
gone so far that teachers are not allowed to mention the word
"Christmas" in December; the proper term is "winter
holiday." Although school calendars feature the dates for Hanukkah
and arcane African religious festivals, the words "Christmas"
and "Easter" are strictly banned.

For more information on the Neoliberal strategy of controlling the
schools, see Chapter 12.

Refuting the Assumption.

All a pro-lifer need do in order to refute the "no religion in
the schools" assumption is to draw a contrast between the schools
in 1940 (when prayer was mandatory and ethics were taught as a class
subject) and now.

A half-century ago, children went to school not only to learn
academic subjects, but to learn how to construct a moral framework
within which to live. To this latter end, they were taught religious
principles grounded in the Ten Commandments.

Today, of course, not only have the schools jettisoned all religious
principles, they have eliminated all moral principles period. Our
kids are taught that the only smart thing to do in this dog-eat-dog
world is to Watch Out For Number One.

And then the Neolibs scratch their heads in all innocence and wonder
why things have gotten so bad.

In 1940, the main problems in the public schools were truancy,
tardiness, smoking in the restrooms, dress code violations, talking in
class, chewing gum, making noise, running in the halls, getting out of
turn, and littering.

Today's teachers, who often face armed assault and rape by their
students, long for the time when these were the worst problems they had
to deal with. Today's major student problems are teenage pregnancy, drug
addiction, alcoholism, concealed weapons, assault on teachers, teenage
suicide, rape, robbery, arson, vandalism, extortion, and a host of
venereal diseases.[21]

When examining the deterioration of our schools, Neoliberals will not
even entertain the thought that moral principles should be
re-established. In fact, they ridicule those who hold such a view. The
Neoliberal solution is simply to pour more and more money into the
schools: Higher salaries, more staff, more counselors, more 'services,'
more expensive equipment, more lavish buildings.

But this largesse does little good. As Chapter 114 in Volume III
("Homeschooling") describes, many studies have shown that our
children, although per capita expenditures in our schools are among the
highest in the world, perform near the bottom of the world's academic
ladder.

And so, many of our children unless they are cared for by their
parents or possess an innate will of steel are conditioned to be soft,
ignorant, entitlement-addicted, demanding little brats who are so
consumed with 'self' that they literally are incapable of seeing beyond
their own tiny sphere of influence.

They loudly demand their privileges and rights while steadfastly
refusing to make any contribution in return. They mindlessly fornicate
and abort and literally go crazy with anger and indignation if any voice
is raised in protest.

They lie. They cheat. They steal. They loot. And when they're caught,
they blame their mothers. Their fathers. Reagan. "Right-wing
fanatics." Anyone but themselves.

And when, after years of complaining, laziness, and agitation, they
find themselves outside the very "system" they so loudly
reject, they pout, weave ineffectual little plots, and squat among their
many possessions while commiserating about how "oppressed"
they are.

Each one of them is an ignorant, slow-witted, soft monument to
squandered human potential, potential that could have measurably improved
the very social conditions they protest so vigorously and so uselessly.

Neoliberals like to say that they hate stereotypes, but they freely
and enthusiastically stereotype those who do not agree with them. In
fact, a quick comparison of a collection of any Neoliberal and
conservative publications will show that the former stereotype the
latter in picture and print approximately twenty times more
frequently that the latter stereotype the former.

In particular, Neoliberals assume that all conservative Christians
are intolerant or judgmental, and that all liberal 'Christians' (from
denominations like the United Church of Christ and the Metropolitan
Community Church) are loving, accepting, and tolerant.

In other words, the only good Christian is a bad Christian. In the
specific case of Catholics, "all roads lead from Rome."

Debunking the Assumption.

At Least We're Trying ... One approach to debunking the "no good
Christians" assumption is to show that the essence and theory of
Christianity is an ideal to be emulated, but that Christians are
realistic enough to recognize that all people are fallen creatures and
cannot possibly achieve the ideal, although some saintly people come
close. We are all sinners, and the important thing is that true
Christians are trying to attain the ideal.

It is easy for Neoliberals to sneer at the failures of Christians and
condemn them because Christian actions do not always match their ideals.

It is inevitable that all Christians will repeatedly fail to meet the
standards set by Christ, at least in some areas. This is what happens
when people engage in the noble pursuit of trying to improve themselves
by reaching for a standard of perfection.

But, contrary to what the Neoliberals say, a failure to reach the
goal one sets for oneself is not hypocrisy; it is simply failure. If a
person is really trying, he will go back and attempt to reach his goal
again and again. This is one of the noblest of human pursuits.

On the other hand, self-satisfied Neoliberals have no
standards to adhere to. They are not trying to improve themselves
(except in a materialistic way). Therefore, they are insulated from
failure by their very timidity and selfishness.

Christian Duty.

Another very important point to make is that true
Christians simply cannot stand on the sidelines and watch others march
serenely down the highway to Hell. This is not love; it is utter
indifference to the plight of others. We, as followers of Christ, must
warn those in sin of the horrors that await them. This duty is
unpleasant and difficult, but it is true love.

By comparison, Neoliberals have no ethical system to live up
to, because they are moral relativists. They do not believe in Hell, and
so they are indifferent to what goes on around them, just so long as
they are not discomfited or inconvenienced.

This is not love; it is madness!

FALSE NEOLIBERAL ASSUMPTION #8:
Diversity is By Definition Good.

Introduction.

Most people who live in cities with large sodomite populations have
seen "HONOR DIVERSITY" bumperstickers on battered cars and
vans, along with others proclaiming various Neoliberal sentiments:
"DREAM BACK THE BISON, SING BACK THE SWAN;" "WOMEN TAKE
BACK THE NIGHT;" and "PRAYERFULLY PRO-CHOICE," among
others.

The "honor diversity" assumption is nothing more or less
than a simple slogan. It is short, it sounds catchy, and it allows a
person to proclaim to the world that he adheres to a philosophy that he
may not even have examined closely enough to defend.

The idea behind the "diversity = good" assumption is that
'humankind' must have a wide variety of people intermixing if it is to
survive. This is a takeoff from the entirely valid biological principle
that nature requires indeed generates diversity to ensure the
survival of life on this planet.

Refuting the Assumption.

However, it is certainly not valid to extract a broad biological
principle in its entirely and apply it indiscriminately to a societal
system. When speaking of 'diversity,' it is useful to remember that the
principle itself is entirely neutral, but the Neoliberals are trying to
transform it into a positive good that is only 'good' when
exercised by Neoliberals.

Pursuing diversity for its own sake can be foolish indeed. For
example, there is a diversity of opinion among men on what the status of
women is in our society. Some men (pimps and pornographers) believe that
women are 'products' or valuable 'commodities' that can be exploited to
make them rich.

Of course, there is still a diversity of opinion among a few people
as to whether Jews and Blacks are even human beings. And a diverse group
of people believe that it is all right to execute killers and eat and
experiment upon animals.

Would the Neoliberals have us believe that these expressions
of 'diversity' are 'good?'

Of course not!

We are once again left with the inevitable conclusion that
'diversity,' just like 'choice,' 'tolerance,' and 'progress,' are merely
artificial constructs (smoke screens) created to cover up Neoliberal
skulduggery and blunders. After all, if we were to extrapolate this
Neoliberal position and 'honor' diversity to a great enough degree,
literally any perversion would be above criticism.

'Diversity,' 'choice,' 'tolerance,' and 'progress' all have positive
connotations, and Neoliberals use them all unilaterally.

In other words, it is only the Neoliberal expression of
'diversity' that is acceptable. It is only the Neoliberal
expression of 'progress' that is valid. And it is only the Neoliberal
expression of 'tolerance' that carries any weight among 'enlightened'
people.

Using examples like those illustrated above, it is relatively easy
for a pro-lifer to illustrate the hypocrisy of this position in a
debate.

[13] E. Michael Jones. "The Pope and the Condom
Worshippers." Fidelity Magazine, October 1987, pages 32-44.
Also see Just Out Magazine, January 1990, page 10.

[14] John Leo. "The Gay Tide of Catholic-Bashing." U.S.
News and World Report, April 1, 1991, page 15. Also reprinted in the
April 14, 1991 issue of Our Sunday Visitor, page 19.

[15] Michelangelo Signorile, editor-at-large of the sodomite magazine
Outweek, quoted in National Review, June 24, 1991.

[16] AIDS-infected sodomite David Wojnarowicz, writing in an NEA-funded
art catalog and quoted by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. "Congress
Continues Funding Pornographic, Anti-Christian 'Art' With Tax
Dollars." American Family Association Journal, January 1990,
page 20. Also see "NEA Continues Funding Anti-Christian Art,
Pornography With Tax Dollars." American Family Association Journal,
May 1990, pages 1 and 13. Also see "Radical New York Homosexual
Artist-Activist Sues AFA, Wildmon for $5,000,000." American Family
Association Journal, July 1990, pages 1 and 22.